Rule2025-23998
International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Exemption for Defense Trade and Cooperation Among Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
December 30, 2025
Effective
December 30, 2025
Issuing agencies
State Department
Abstract
This rule streamlines defense trade and facilitates cooperation among our allies while reducing the regulatory burden for exporters, in support of the President's Executive Order 14268 of April 9, 2025, "Reforming Foreign Defense Sales to Improve Speed and Accountability". In this rule the Department of State (the Department) finalizes, with changes, the interim final rule published on August 20, 2024. The interim final rule made several amendments to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), pursuant to section 38(l) of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), to facilitate defense trade and cooperation among Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, including through a new exemption to the licensing requirements of the ITAR. The Department is also now responding to public comments received on the interim final rule.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 246 (Tuesday, December 30, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 30, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61053-61062]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-23998]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 126
[Public Notice: 12799]
RIN 1400-AF84
International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Exemption for Defense
Trade and Cooperation Among Australia, the United Kingdom, and the
United States
AGENCY: Department of State.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 61054]]
SUMMARY: This rule streamlines defense trade and facilitates
cooperation among our allies while reducing the regulatory burden for
exporters, in support of the President's Executive Order 14268 of April
9, 2025, ``Reforming Foreign Defense Sales to Improve Speed and
Accountability''. In this rule the Department of State (the Department)
finalizes, with changes, the interim final rule published on August 20,
2024. The interim final rule made several amendments to the
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), pursuant to section
38(l) of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), to facilitate defense
trade and cooperation among Australia, the United Kingdom, and the
United States, including through a new exemption to the licensing
requirements of the ITAR. The Department is also now responding to
public comments received on the interim final rule.
DATES: The rule is effective December 30, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Engda Wubneh, Foreign Affairs
Officer, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, U.S. Department of
State, telephone (771) 205-9566; email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d89c9c8c9b9badabacb7b5bdaa8bbdaaaeb1bbbd98abacb9acbdf6bfb7ae"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9edadacaddddebedeaf1f3fbeccdfbece8f7fdfbdeedeaffeafbb0f9f1e8">[email protected]</span></a>,
ATTN: Regulatory Change, ITAR Section 126.7 Australia, the United
Kingdom, and the United States Exemption.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In support of the President's Executive
Order on ``Reforming Foreign Defense Sales to Improve Speed and
Accountability,'' the Department is publishing this rule to streamline
defense trade and facilitate cooperation among our allies while
reducing the regulatory burden for exporters. Further, the Department
is responding to public comments received pursuant to the interim final
rule (89 FR 67270), which created new efficiencies within the ITAR. The
interim final rule implemented new authorities provided in section
38(l) of the AECA (22 U.S.C. 2778(l)), as added by section 1343 of the
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2024 (Pub. L.
118-31). Specifically, it added Sec. 126.7, which previously had been
reserved, to create the exemption for defense trade and cooperation
among Australia, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (``the
Sec. 126.7 exemption''). The Sec. 126.7 exemption states that no
license or other approval is required for the export, reexport,
retransfer, or temporary import of defense articles, the performance of
defense services, or engaging in brokering activities between or among
Authorized Users within the physical territory of Australia, the United
Kingdom, and the United States provided certain requirements and
limitations are met. The rule also created a new Supplement No. 2 to
Part 126, an Excluded Technology List (ETL), that lists the defense
articles and defense services ineligible for transfer pursuant to the
Sec. 126.7 exemption. Further, the Department added Sec. 126.18(e)
for transfers of classified defense articles to dual nationals who are
citizens of Australia and the United Kingdom and another country,
provided all relevant criteria are met. The Department also added Sec.
126.15(c) and (d), which implemented expedited license processing for
exports of defense articles and defense services to Australia, the
United Kingdom, and Canada.
The Department acknowledges and appreciates the comments submitted
in response to the interim final rule and is now publishing this final
rule to address these comments.
In response to comments received, the primary changes to regulatory
text in this rulemaking are as follows:
<bullet> In ITAR Sec. 126.7, the section heading is revised to
``Exemptions'' to account for a new and separate exemption for
reexports, retransfers, or temporary imports of defense articles to
support the armed forces of Australia, the United Kingdom, or the
United States, provided certain requirements are met. Titles have been
added to the paragraphs found in Sec. 126.7 to clearly delineate each
exemption and their associated requirements and limitations.
Additionally, the phrase ``other approval'' is removed in this section.
<bullet> In ITAR Sec. 126.7(a), the term ``furnishing'' replaces
the phrase ``the performance'' in order to be consistent with existing
language in the ITAR regarding defense services. In ITAR Sec.
126.7(b)(2), language is added so that a United Kingdom or Australian
government department or agency is identified as a transferor,
recipient, or broker in Sec. 126.7(b)(2), and language pertaining to
U.S. persons registered with the applicable Directorate of Defense
Trade Controls (DDTC) registration is changed from ``not debarred under
Sec. 127.7'' to ``eligible under Sec. 120.16'' to account for all
reasons a U.S. person may be ineligible to use the Sec. 126.7
exemption.
<bullet> In ITAR Sec. 126.7, paragraphs (c) and (d) are added for
a new exemption for certain reexports, retransfers, or temporary
imports of defense articles to support the armed forces of Australia,
the United Kingdom, or the United States.
<bullet> In ITAR Sec. Sec. 126.7 and 126.18, the phrase
``Authorized User'' replaces the phrase ``authorized user'' for
consistency throughout the regulations.
<bullet> In ITAR Sec. 126.18(e), ``Australian or United Kingdom
parties described in Sec. 126.7(b)(2)(ii) or (iii) or are regular
employees thereof'' replaced ``authorized users or regular employees of
an authorized user of the exemption in Sec. 126.7'' because the
parties described in Sec. 126.7(b)(2) expanded with the addition of a
United Kingdom national-level government department or agency or
Australian federal government department or agency.
The Department notes separately that in the spirit of promoting
defense trade between and among Australia, the United Kingdom, and the
United States during the initial implementation of the Sec. 126.7
exemption, the Department began expediting all export licensing
adjudications for Australia and the United Kingdom on September 1,
2024, when the interim final rule became effective, regardless of
whether a license application met the eligibility criterion in ITAR
Sec. 126.15(c). The Department now notes over 700 entities from
Australia and the United Kingdom have become Authorized Users and
industry from all three countries have, over the last year, utilized
and familiarized themselves with the ITAR Sec. 126.7 exemption. Now
that industry has become better acquainted with the Sec. 126.7
exemption and as it has become more readily available for widespread
industry use due to the growing number of Authorized Users, the
Department is now processing expedited licensing requests based on the
eligibility criterion of Sec. 126.15(c), which states expedited
licensing is available for an export that cannot be undertaken under an
exemption.
Although outside the scope of this rulemaking, comments received
related to the Authorized User Terms and Conditions and subsequent
changes the Department has made to these terms and conditions
facilitate use of the Sec. 126.7 exemption are addressed in detail
below. The Authorized User Terms and Conditions are the compliance
requirements Australian and United Kingdom parties agree to as part of
the process to become an Authorized User. A detailed review and
response to the public comments submitted in the interim final rule,
organized by ITAR section, is as follows.
ITAR Sec. 126.7: Exemption for Defense Trade and Cooperation Among
Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States
Three commenters recommended expanding the Sec. 126.7 exemption
outside of the physical territories of
[[Page 61055]]
Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States in support of
Australia, the United Kingdom, or the United States' armed forces or
Authorized Users deploying overseas to support those armed forces.
Another commenter recommended including the modified Sec. 126.7 in
Sec. 126.1(a), which describes exceptions to the policy of denial the
Department holds toward certain proscribed destinations. Also, another
commenter recommended that Sec. 126.7 mirror Sec. 120.54(a)(6). The
Department declines to accept all of these comments in full and
reiterates that the scope of the Sec. 126.7 exemption was defined
pursuant to AECA section 38(l)(1)(C)(2), which did not include
transfers outside of Australia, the United Kingdom, or the United
States. However, based on these comments and consultations with
Australia and the United Kingdom, the Department is adding a new and
separate exemption found in Sec. 126.7 for reexports, retransfers, or
temporary imports of defense articles to support the armed forces of
Australia, the United Kingdom, or the United States, provided certain
requirements are met.
Two commenters recommended removing the provisions in Sec.
126.7(b)(4) that relate to sections 36(c) and 36(d) of the AECA
regarding congressional certifications. The Department declines to
accept this recommendation as those provisions are required by law.
One commenter sought confirmation that the provision of defense
services authorized via a mechanism other than a Technical Assistance
Agreement (TAA) or Manufacturing License Agreement (MLA), including the
Sec. 126.7 exemption, does not subject the resultant foreign-origin
defense article to the ITAR or its reexport and retransfer
requirements. The Department states that, pursuant to the Authorized
User Terms and Conditions, defense articles produced or manufactured
from technical data or defense services exported from the United States
via the Sec. 126.7 exemption are subject to reexport and retransfer
requirements under the ITAR. Such reexport or retransfer may be
authorized, however, pursuant to the Sec. 126.7 exemption.
Additionally, the interim final rule (89 FR 67270) amended Sec.
124.8(a)(5) to enable the transfer of defense articles produced or
manufactured pursuant to such agreements pursuant to the Sec. 126.7
exemption. If such an agreement does not include the updated Sec.
124.8(a)(5) clause referencing Sec. 126.7, the U.S. agreement holder
may submit a minor amendment to update the subject clause if they want
to utilize the Sec. 126.7 exemption as the authorization for a
reexport or retransfer.
One commenter sought clarification as to whether an item exported
from the United States to an Authorized User using a DSP-5 license in
furtherance of a Warehouse and Distribution Agreement (WDA) and later
retransferred to an eligible recipient under the Sec. 126.7 exemption
would need to be included in the WDA annual sales report. As an initial
matter, the Department notes that Sec. 124.14(b)(2) requires
applicants to include a detailed statement of the terms and conditions
under which defense articles licensed under the WDA will be exported
and distributed. Unless the Sec. 126.7 exemption is identified as a
likely method of authorizing distribution, transfers of defense
articles licensed under a WDA should not occur. Assuming that the Sec.
126.7 exemption has been identified in the WDA, items retransferred
pursuant to Sec. 126.7 should be included in the WDA annual sales
report.
The same commenter inquired as to where Directorate of Defense
Trade Controls (DDTC) guidance may be found regarding the Australian,
Canadian, and United Kingdom's exclusion from signing DSP-83's. The
Department notes, specifically with respect to exports undertaken
pursuant to the country exemptions for Australia, Canada, and the
United Kingdom, the text of Sec. 123.10(a) was amended by the interim
final rule (89 FR 67270) to exclude Sec. Sec. 126.5 and Sec. 126.7.
The same commenter asked whether transfers pursuant to cooperative
programs are eligible under the Sec. 126.7 exemption. The Department
notes that the Sec. 126.7 exemption is only available for qualifying
transfers that rely on the ITAR as the transfer authority.
One commenter asked, in a scenario in which an item is exported
under the authorities in Sec. 126.7 to the United Kingdom and the
United Kingdom later needs to reexport the item to another country,
whether the reexport authorization request should go to the United
States or the United Kingdom. Similarly, if the item is being
reexported to a country that is not Australia, the United Kingdom, or
the United States, the commenter asked if a DSP-5 should be sought in
order to cover the initial export from the United States to the United
Kingdom and any subsequent reexport to another country. The Department
clarifies that provided all criteria are met, the Sec. 126.7 exemption
is available for use for the initial export, but the exporter may still
elect to apply for a license if it prefers. If the defense article
later needs to be reexported from the United Kingdom to a third
country, reexport authorization from the Department would be required,
whether in the form of a license or another authorization such as an
exemption. The Department defers to the UK government on the question
of whether it would also impose a licensing requirement on the export
of the defense article from the United Kingdom.
One commenter asserted that individuals must be regular employees
to use the Sec. 126.7 exemption and that certain contractors for the
UK and Australian governments do not meet the definition of regular
employee found at Sec. 120.64 as they are sole proprietors. The same
commenter recommended amending Sec. 120.64 with a new paragraph
stating that the ``[s]taffing agency includes other contract employee
providers and individuals trading as a sole proprietorship and seconded
by the staffing agency and meet all requirements of Sec. 120.64(a)(2)
are deemed to be a regular employee.'' Further, the commenter requested
the Department publish a frequently asked questions (FAQ) clarifying
that contract employees include foreign persons who meet the definition
of a regular employee in Sec. 120.64. The Department declines to
accept the commenter's recommendations and clarifies that there is no
requirement to be a regular employee to use the Sec. 126.7 exemption,
nor is the definition of regular employee limited to U.S. persons.
Pursuant to Sec. 126.7(b)(2), the parties described are eligible to
use the Sec. 126.7 exemption provided all other criteria are met.
One commenter asked for more information about the security and
handling requirements for defense articles, including technical data,
for Authorized Users in Australia. The same commenter asked if marking
documents is required, and if Note 1 to Sec. 126.7(b)'s reference to
the Australian Government Protective Security Policy Framework is the
only security requirement. The Department clarifies that Note 1 to
paragraph (b) of Sec. 126.7 reminds the public that the exemption does
not remove any other U.S. statutory and regulatory requirements. The
listed requirements are examples, not an exhaustive list of security
requirements. Further, there are no specific marking requirements in
the Sec. 126.7 exemption. Regarding Australia's security and handling
requirements, the Department cannot opine on laws or regulations
outside its jurisdiction.
One commenter sought confirmation that classified transfers are
allowed under the Sec. 126.7 exemption. The Department confirms that
classified
[[Page 61056]]
transfers (e.g., exports, reexports, retransfers, etc.) are allowed
under Sec. Sec. 126.7 and 126.18, provided the relevant exemption's
criteria are met.
One commenter asserted that DDTC's registration acknowledgement
letter does not identify U.S. affiliates or subsidiaries and thus does
not confirm that an affiliate or subsidiary is included as part of a
U.S. person's registration. The same commenter recommended publishing a
FAQ on the DDTC website confirming that U.S. affiliates or subsidiaries
identified in block 8 of the DS-2032 form are eligible to use the
exemption as part of the parent's registration. Further, the commenter
recommended modifying DDTC's registration acknowledgement letter to
include any U.S. affiliates or subsidiaries from the DS-2032, allow
Authorized Users to have DECCS accounts, and create a feature for users
to search for U.S. registrants including affiliates and subsidiaries.
DDTC is publishing an FAQ on its website to clarify that U.S.
subsidiaries and affiliates of U.S. person DDTC registrants listed in
block 8 of the DS-2032 are eligible to self-certify to exemption usage
and meets the registration requirement of Sec. 126.7(b)(2)(i).
ITAR Sec. 126.15: Expedited Processing of License Applications for the
Export of Defense Articles and Defense Services to Australia, the
United Kingdom, or Canada
One commenter asserted that the U.S. allies, including Canada, who
are eligible for expedited processing for export license applications
pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 126.15 should be treated the same
for purposes of the ITAR. The Department notes the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 called for expedited licensing
for the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada. It also separately
created section 38(l) of the AECA, which ultimately resulted in the
creation of a defense trade exemption for the United Kingdom and
Australia. The Department implemented what was required by law, and the
inclusion of Canada within the framework of the exemption described in
section 38(l) of the AECA was not included in the law. The Canadian
exemption in Sec. 126.5 exists pursuant to different authority under
the AECA, and the provisions of section 38(l) of the AECA do not extend
to transfers to or from Canada.
One commenter sought clarification regarding whether the expedited
processing of license applications described in Sec. 126.15(c) and (d)
applies to all United Kingdom and Australian companies or only
Authorized Users. The Department confirms that the expedited procedures
apply to all parties in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada. The
same commenter requested that the expedited processing of license
applications also apply to General Correspondence requests submitted by
Australian and UK companies. The Department declines to accept this
recommendation as the expediting requirement set forth in section 1344
of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2024 (22 U.S.C. 10423) applies to exports
and not other types of transfers (e.g., reexports or retransfers) that
would be authorized via General Correspondence.
One commenter suggested the Department create an Open General
License for the reexport and retransfer of unclassified defense
articles, in support of AUKUS, among Australia, the United Kingdom, the
United States and allied countries, such as NATO and Five Eyes
partners, allowing for retransfers and reexports to be authorized by
the country of reexport or retransfer rather than the country of
origin. Alternatively, if the Department is not amenable to this
suggestion, the commenter recommended amending Sec. 126.15(c) and (d)
to apply to reexports to third country partners if the end-use is in
support of AUKUS. The Department declines to accept these suggestions.
The expedited procedures set out in section 1344 of the NDAA for Fiscal
Year 2024 and implemented in the ITAR were intended to facilitate
defense trade between the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Australia, not reexports from those countries to additional countries.
One commenter recommended that a Department decision to deny a
license application or return without action (RWA) a license
application be a decision made at the Deputy Assistant Secretary (DAS)
level. Further, the same commenter recommended the DDTC DAS review on a
monthly or quarterly basis those license applications that have been
adjudicated but not approved, in order to ensure that license
applications are not being rejected because the statutorily required
timeframes are approaching. This comment is outside the scope of the
current rulemaking as it addresses internal Department processes and
procedures and sections of the ITAR that are not the subject of this
rulemaking. Furthermore, the recommendations are unnecessary and
duplicative. ITAR Sec. 120.1(b)(2)(i) delegates to the Director of the
Office of Defense Trade Controls Licensing (DTCL) the responsibilities
related to licensing. The DTCL Director already routinely reviews all
licenses recommended for denial and tracks in real time all licenses
subject to the expedited review procedures. The Department has not to
date, and has no plans in the future, to implement a policy of denying
or returning without action license applications because the
statutorily required timeframes are approaching. Furthermore, all
license applications that are returned without action are also subject
to secondary review procedures to ensure consistent treatment and
determine whether an incomplete or defective license application can be
salvaged. For these reasons, the Department declines to accept the
recommendations.
One commenter recommended changing the expedited license processing
timelines found in Sec. 126.15(d) to 15 days and 21 days,
respectively, for applications related to government-to-government
agreements and all other applications. The Department declines to
accept this comment as the 30- and 45-day license application
timeframes were established by statute in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024.
ITAR Sec. 126.18: Exemptions Regarding Intracompany, Intra-
Organization, and Intragovernmental Transfers to Employees Who Are Dual
Nationals or Third-Country Nationals
One commenter asked what qualifies as a SECRET level security
clearance under Sec. 126.18(d) and if security clearances required
under Sec. 126.18(d) are different than those under Sec. 126.18(e).
The Department notes that Sec. 126.18(d) is reserved for the reexport
of unclassified defense articles or defense services. There is no
security clearance requirement in this portion of the exemption. The
relevant requirement in Sec. 126.18(e) is for a UK or Australian dual
national to hold a security clearance approved by Australia, the United
Kingdom, or the United States that is equivalent to the classification
level of SECRET or above in the United States. That differs from Sec.
126.18(c), which states a qualifying condition is a security clearance
approved by the host nation government for its employees.
One commenter sought clarification regarding whether a dual citizen
of both the United States and Australia is considered a dual national
for purposes of Sec. 126.18(e). The Department confirms Sec.
126.18(e) is available in the case of a dual citizen of the United
States and Australia.
One commenter inquired whether Sec. 126.7 should be read with
Sec. 126.18(d),
[[Page 61057]]
but exclusive of ITAR Sec. 126.18(e). The Department clarifies that
Sec. 126.7, Sec. 126.18(d) and Sec. 126.18(e) are all separate ITAR
exemptions. ITAR Sec. 126.7(b)(2) lists who may be eligible to use the
Sec. 126.7 exemption, Sec. 126.18(d) authorizes transfers to dual and
third-country nationals provided all other criteria are met for the
exemption, and Sec. 126.18(e) is available to dual nationals of the
United Kingdom or Australia provided all other criteria are met for the
exemption.
Supplement No. 2 to Part 126--Excluded Technology List
Multiple commenters expressed appreciation for the work of all
three governments to refine the Excluded Technology List (ETL) from
what was initially published in the proposed rule. The Department
notes, as a threshold matter, that it monitored licensing requests for
Australia or the United Kingdom against the ETL over a three-month
period and assesses approximately 18% of such licensing requests would
not be eligible for transfer under the exemption because of the ETL.
The Department has expedited those licensing requests with an average
processing time of 16.6 days. Multiple commenters requested additional
efforts to align the ETL for the Sec. 126.7 exemption with the ETLs
implemented by Australia and the United Kingdom. The Department
continues to work with its international partners to more clearly align
the three ETLs where practicable. However, due to differences in the
underlying export control lists, the three ETLs will not align
perfectly and each partner must maintain its own implementation to
account for differences in national legal and policy requirements and
to remain agile in adapting to revisions of its own national
regulations.
One commenter, in expressing appreciation for the Department's
commitment to periodic reviews of the ETL, encouraged the Department to
continue to engage with industry and open another comment period
specifically for further review of the ETL. The Department values the
industry contributions in the two prior comment periods and declines to
open another comment period at this time, although it may issue a
request for such comment at a future date.
Two commenters criticized the ETL as burdensome, without
identifying specific examples of where the list is overly burdensome or
suggestions for changes to the list. The Department has committed to an
annual review of the ETL for the first five years after implementation,
and periodically thereafter.
One commenter requested more transparency when updates to the ETL
are made either by website posting or utilizing other technologies to
release updates to the public. The Department notes that any future
changes to the ETL will be published in the Federal Register.
Two commenters suggested revising ETL entries to clarify the scope
of excluded technical data and defense services. The first recommended
rewording the ETL entry for United States Munitions List (USML)
Category XVIII to clarify it excludes ``classified technical data and
defense services directly related to classified articles specially
designed for counter-space operations,'' and not ``all classified USML
Category XVIII technical data and defense services,'' asserting that
the semicolon after ``counter-space operations'' creates confusion. The
commenter specifically suggests the entry is unclear as to whether the
final clause refers only to the antecedent ``Classified articles
described in USML Category XVIII specially designed for counter-space
operations'' or if it refers to the entire USML category. The
Department declines to revise this entry and notes its use of the
semicolon in this entry is consistent both with usage throughout the
ETL and the Department's intent. Specifically, use of the adjective
phrase ``directly related [to]'' requires an object. As in the other
ETL entries, ``directly related technical data and defense services''
refers to all antecedent defense articles within the entry. An example
where the Department intends to exclude technical data for all articles
in a USML category is found in the ETL entry for USML Category XVI. The
second commenter requested specific revisions of the ETL entry for
Category XI(a)(4)(i), (c)(1) through (3), and (d), to provide that only
``classified, directly related classified technical data and classified
defense services to the previously proposed exclusions'' are excluded.
The Department declines to do so, assessing the entry is already
sufficiently clear and concise, and consistent with entries throughout
the ETL. Because ``directly related'' in this entry modifies both
``technical data'' and ``defense services,'' ``classified,'' must
similarly modify both. Thus, the excluded technical data and defense
services in this entry comprise: classified technical data directly
related to the articles identified in the preceding clause(s) and
classified defense services directly related to the articles identified
in the preceding clause(s).
One commenter encouraged DDTC to limit the ETL entry for MT-
designated articles and services only to the exclusions outlined in
AECA subsection (j)(1)(C)(ii). That commenter and one other requested
amendment of that ETL entry to apply only to complete unmanned aerial
systems (UAS). The first commenter proposed using language it
previously suggested in response to the proposed rule. As it did in the
interim final rule, the Department again declines to rely on the
regulated community to interpret elements of the AECA and Missile
Technology Control Regime (MTCR), including the term ``for use in
rocket systems,'' for the purposes of authorizing exports. One of the
commenters asserted industry regularly interprets whether MTCR controls
apply; however, discrepancies in MT designations for license
application submissions do not carry the same risk as discrepancies in
self-assessing whether a technology may be exported as required by the
exemption. The Department previously removed USML entries with an
``MT'' designation from the MTCR entry on the ETL when the USML entry
(1) does not include MTCR Category I commodities and (2) does not
include MTCR Category II commodities for use in rockets.
One commenter also requested the Department consider carving out
USML Category IV(d)(3) in the same manner as the Department previously
carved out USML Category VIII(h)(12) from the MTCR entry. The
Department declines to do so and notes the articles described in USML
Category IV(d)(3) are described in Item 20.A.1.b of the MTCR Annex.
Because paragraph (d)(3) describes MTCR Category II commodities for
missiles, rockets, and space launch vehicles, the Department affirms
that articles described in that entry are not eligible for transfer
under the Sec. 126.7 exemption.
Two commenters suggested revisions to the USML Category I through
XX anti-tamper (AT) entry on the ETL. One commenter recommended
expanding this entry to exclude AT technologies verified and validated
by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) to control those technologies
that are not U.S. Programs of Record and do not have a DoD Program
Protection Plan. Having consulted with DoD, the Department declines to
expand the ETL as requested. Another commenter recommended revising the
exclusion to clarify it does not exclude articles with AT features that
are already installed in a major component they are designed to
protect, similar to those installed in end-items. The Department
declines to do so and notes that components and
[[Page 61058]]
end-items are already both included in the definition of a commodity at
Sec. 120.40(a). Thus, articles having excluded anti-tamper features
that are already installed in the commodity, including components and
end items, they are designed to protect, are not currently excluded by
this ETL entry.
One commenter noted the control text of USML Category
XI(a)(3)(xxix) refers to paragraphs (a)(6) and (a)(13) of USML Category
VIII, which are currently reserved. The Department thanks the commenter
for this observation and notes this does not materially affect the
operation of the USML or the ETL. Although updates to the USML are
outside the scope of this rulemaking, the Department is tracking this
issue for future updates to the USML.
One commenter recommended the Department ``streamline'' the entry
that currently applies to paragraphs (c) and (d) of Category XI by
removing references to paragraph (d) technical data and defense
services. The commenter proposed language that does not appear to
differ from the current ETL. The Department declines to remove the
references to technical data and defense services, as it would
inappropriately reduce the scope of the exclusion.
One commenter requested the Department clarify that defense
services furnished by a U.S. Authorized User based solely on
information furnished by an Australian or UK Authorized User are not
excluded by the ETL. The Department declines to do so, as the request
is overly broad and would complicate compliance efforts. Furthermore,
the Department notes one of the reasons it regulates defense services
is its interest in ensuring the use of U.S. expertise and know-how is
consistent with U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives,
even if no technical data is transferred. The commenter specifically
posed a hypothetical scenario in which the Australian Department of
Defence (ADoD) hires a U.S. company to provide advisory services that
constitute a defense service directly related to a USML Category XI(b)
defense article. According to the hypothetical, to furnish these
services, the U.S. company must review classified information furnished
by the ADoD, directly related to articles described in USML Category
XI(b). The commenter asserted the U.S. company may not rely on the
exemption provided at Sec. 126.7 due to the ETL entry that excludes
classified articles described in USML Category XI(b) and classified,
directly related technical data and defense services. As a result, the
U.S. company must seek a technical assistance agreement (TAA) for this
service, even though it does not plan to export any hardware, software,
technical data, or information about U.S. Government (USG) systems or
methods. The Department affirms that classified defense services
directly related to a classified USML Category XI(b) defense article
are not eligible to be furnished under the Sec. 126.7 exemption, even
if those services do not involve the transfer or use of U.S.-origin
hardware or technical data. However, the Department also clarifies that
classified defense services are those that meet the definition of
``classified'' in Sec. 120.38. Thus, defense services are not
``classified'' solely on the basis that the service involves the use of
classified information or classified hardware. The Department also
notes it has committed to, and is currently meeting, expedited
licensing timelines pursuant to Sec. 126.15, which should facilitate
U.S. companies obtaining any necessary licenses or agreements.
One commenter inquired whether the Sec. 126.7 exemption places
limits on the figure of merit (FOM) for night vision devices
transferred under the exemption. The Department observes the ETL does
not currently exclude articles based on FOM criteria. Note that all
applicable ETL entries must be reviewed to determine whether a
particular defense article is eligible for transfer pursuant to the
exemption.
One commenter requested clarification regarding whether the Sec.
126.7 exemption allows exports of unclassified technical data regarding
USG cryptographic devices that have not yet been certified and not yet
approved for foreign release by the appropriate USG entities. The
Department affirms the referenced ETL entry is not intended to exclude
unclassified technical data or articles related to USG cryptographic
devices. However, the Sec. 126.7 exemption pertains specifically to
ITAR license requirements. It does not relieve exporters of the
obligation to comply with other applicable requirements outside the
ITAR, such as National Security Agency certification requirements.
One commenter objected to the ETL entry for USML Category XX(d),
asserting it does not reflect U.S. legal obligations and that it will
disrupt the development of AUKUS Pillar I and Pillar II activities. The
Department declines to modify the USML Category XX(d) entry of the ETL
at this time because the USG assesses that continued review of licenses
or use of the Sec. 126.4 exemption is required to protect critical
technologies. The Department further notes that authorizations to
export such technology are subject to the expedited licensing
procedures referenced above.
Authorized User-Related Public Comments
A number of commenters offered observations and recommendations
regarding the Authorized User Terms and Conditions. The Authorized User
Terms and Conditions are the compliance requirements of Australian and
UK parties participating in transfers or activities via the Sec. 126.7
exemption. Australian and UK parties must sign the Authorized User
Terms and Conditions to complete their Authorized User enrollment
package and to initiate their governments' review processes. The
Authorized User Terms and Conditions were established as part of
separate government-to-government agreements with Australia and the
United Kingdom to provide maximum speed and accountability in enrolling
and maintaining Authorized Users of Australia and the United Kingdom.
While the administration of the Authorized User enrollment process is
outside of the scope of this rulemaking, the Department summarizes and
provides information in response to those comments here as a matter of
convenience.
Three commenters recommended modifying the Authorized Users Terms
and Conditions to align the text with existing provisions of the ITAR,
including Sec. 127.12. The Department notes the Authorized User Terms
and Conditions have been updated based on these recommendations to
incorporate by reference existing disclosure guidance and requirements
in Sec. Sec. 127.12 and 126.1.
Three commenters recommended modifying the Authorized Users Terms
and Conditions for the United Kingdom to use the existing Sec.
123.9(b) destination control statement, and to amend Sec.
123.9(b)(1)(iv) to refer to a destination as ``country or countries.''
The Department notes the Authorized User Terms and Conditions have been
updated to incorporate by reference the standard destination control
statement in Sec. 123.9(b).
One commenter suggested UK industry is still unclear regarding the
process of becoming an Authorized User, and the commenter stated that
the UK Ministry of Defence assured them further guidance on the process
is forthcoming. The commenter further expressed this has caused delays
for industry. The Department notes the UK Ministry of Defence has
provided further guidance regarding the
[[Page 61059]]
Authorized User enrollment process since the publication of the interim
final rule that introduced the Sec. 126.7 exemption.
One commenter reported problems with locating a list of U.S.
Authorized Users and sought clarification as to whether that list is
provided somewhere other than the Defense Export Control and Compliance
System (DECCS). The Department notes, per the language of ITAR Sec.
126.7(b)(2)(i), all U.S. persons registered with DDTC and who are
eligible to receive an ITAR license or other authorization as stated in
ITAR Sec. 120.16 may utilize the exemption provided all other criteria
in Sec. 126.7 are met.
One commenter sought clarity regarding the process that should be
followed to share technology with entities that are not Authorized
Users within Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The
Department notes that while the Sec. 126.7 exemption is not available
in such cases, all other existing authorization mechanisms under the
ITAR remain available, including the licensing process or other license
exemptions within the ITAR, according to their terms.
One commenter inquired as to whether the Authorized User process
for the Sec. 126.7 exemption included audits, certifications, or
supply chain reviews. The Department notes that the Authorized User
process is an intergovernmental process for vetting Authorized Users of
the exemption within the UK and Australia. Additional information on
becoming an Authorized User is available on the DDTC website and from
the UK and Australian governments.
One commenter noted that there will be a need to train companies
who are Authorized Users not only on compliance with the Sec. 126.7
exemption, but on their compliance obligations generally. The
Department acknowledges the comment and continues to work with the
governments of both the United Kingdom and Australia and industry in
both countries to promote compliance.
One commenter suggested that the Authorized User enrollment process
is administratively burdensome, lengthy, and inconsistent among the
three countries. The Department notes enrollment of Authorized Users is
a priority across all three governments to support industry use of the
Sec. 126.7 exemption and has already been modified and streamlined as
described in this rule.
One commenter stated that the respective Authorized User guidance
documents for the United Kingdom and Australia have different
notification requirements regarding changes to corporate information
furnished to each respective government. Further, the commenter
recommended that the UK reporting requirement to notify both the UK
Ministry of Defense and DDTC of corporate information changes should be
amended to conform to existing notification requirements pursuant to
Sec. 127.12. The Department has recently updated the UK Authorized
User Terms and Conditions accordingly.
One commenter recommended that Australia, the United Kingdom, and
the United States develop a process to report publicly when a former
Authorized User is removed from the Authorized User list. The
Department offers a reminder that the Authorized User list is the
official up-to-date record of Authorized Users of Australia and the
United Kingdom who are eligible via Sec. 126.7(b)(2)(iii). Non-
governmental parties and state, territorial, or local government
parties of Australia or the United Kingdom are required to be
enumerated on the Authorized User list to be eligible via Sec.
126.7(b)(2)(iii). Exemption users are responsible for checking if there
are any changes to the list.
One commenter recommended the Department enumerate UK and
Australian government departments and agencies in Sec. 126.7(b)(2),
rather than on the Authorized User list, so that it is clear which
entities are eligible to use the Sec. 126.7 exemption. Similarly,
another commenter recommended clarifying that government agencies that
report to the Australian Department of Defence, the UK Ministry of
Defence, and any other government departments are included as
Authorized Users. The Department accepts this recommendation, in part,
by adding regulatory text confirming that UK national-level and
Australian federal government departments or agencies are within the
scope of Sec. 126.7(b)(2), but those departments or agencies are not
enumerated on the Authorized User list, unless they so request.
One commenter recommended moving away from manual reviews of the
Authorized Users list in DECCS and providing an Application Programming
Interface (API)--establishing a software communications protocol--
between DECCS and industry screening tools to verify Authorized Users
at the time of export. Alternatively, the commenter suggested the
Department could also provide a downloadable Excel document with all
Authorized Users. The Department acknowledges this comment and notes it
is exploring upgrades to the Authorized User List in DECCS to increase
functionality.
Other Public Comments
One commenter recommended the Department consider adding Canada, to
include the Canadian exemptions found at Sec. 126.5, into the new
defense trade and cooperation framework for the United Kingdom and
Australia. Alternatively, the commenter suggested retaining the
Canadian exemptions at Sec. 126.5, but revising the language of those
exemptions to mirror the language found in the Sec. 126.7 exemption.
The Department declines to accept both recommendations. The creation of
the ITAR exemption for defense trade among the UK, Australia, and the
United States came pursuant to section 38(l) of the AECA; upon positive
certification, the AECA called for the creation of an ITAR exemption
with specific requirements. The Department continues to review options
to improve standardization of exemption presentation throughout the
regulations but also notes that the Sec. 126.7 exemption has
requirements that differ from the Canadian exemptions and that are
imposed by statute.
One commenter sought clarity on nontransfer and use certificate
(i.e., DSP-83) signature requirements when certain parties to a
transaction are Authorized Users and others are not. The Department
reiterates that Sec. 123.10(a) was amended to remove the requirement
to sign a DSP-83 when relying on the exemptions in Sec. Sec. 126.5 and
126.7. With respect to Sec. 126.5, the exemptions do not include any
requirement that any party be an Authorized User and, pursuant to Sec.
123.10(a), the requirement to complete a DSP-83 is waived for
transactions pursuant to that exemption regardless of any party's
status as an Authorized User. With respect to the Sec. 126.7
exemption, if any party to the transaction is not an Authorized User,
the transaction would not qualify for the Sec. 126.7 exemption. In
other words, the hypothetical scenario posed by the commenter is not
possible because any transaction involving both Authorized Users and
parties that are not Authorized Users would not be eligible for the
Sec. 126.7 exemption and would therefore need an alternative form of
authorization, which would require the completion of a DSP-83
consistent with Sec. 123.10(a).
One commenter recommended revising Sec. 123.9(c)(4) to include the
Sec. 126.7 exemption. The Department declines to accept this comment
as Sec. 123.9(c)(4) outlines criteria specific to the UK and
Australian Defense Trade
[[Page 61060]]
Cooperation Treaties exemptions found at Sec. Sec. 126.16 and 126.17
and reexports or retransfers must likewise be authorized in accordance
with the provisions of those Treaties.
One commenter sought clarification on whether Sec. 123.9(e)
excludes Sec. 126.7, similar to how it excludes Sec. Sec. 126.16 and
126.17. The Department confirms that defense articles exported pursuant
to Sec. 126.7 are not excluded from Sec. 123.9(e).
One commenter suggested there is a need for Australia, the United
Kingdom, and the United States to harmonize cyber security standards to
effectively share defense-related technologies. The Department notes
this comment is outside the scope of the rulemaking.
One commenter expressed that industry is hoping for parallel
changes to the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) process that are similar to
the Sec. 126.7 exemption and that such changes are necessary for AUKUS
to succeed. The Department acknowledges this comment; however, it is
outside the scope of the rulemaking.
One commenter recommended a Defense Trade Advisory Group made up of
foreign industry, primarily from host countries that are U.S. allies,
rather than just U.S. industry, to provide advice to the U.S.
Government on regulatory issues. The Department acknowledges this
comment; however, it is outside the scope of the rulemaking.
One commenter recommended the Department clarify whether values for
purposes of congressional certification are calculated on a ``per
shipment'' includes ``per transfers'' of technical data and/or defense
services. Further, the commenter requested the Department create an FAQ
clarifying that congressional certification thresholds should not be
based on the total contract value, including when a contract
modification causes it to meet or exceed current congressional
certification thresholds, but rather value for congressional
certification purposes should be based on individual transactions that
meet or exceed the congressional thresholds or those that involved the
manufacturing of significant military equipment abroad. The Department
notes the DDTC website has an existing FAQ on this topic, which states
parties should base their calculations for congressional certification
on a per shipment basis.
One commenter recommended the Department work with its interagency
partners and Congress to eliminate, within the context of the AUKUS
partnership, the license requirement, interagency review, and tiered
review of transfers that meet the congressional certification
thresholds. The commenter went on to suggest that industry should only
be required to submit notification of a transfer to the Department, who
would then notify Congress using a 15-day review period. The Department
will monitor the implementation and effectiveness of the Sec. 126.7
exemption and make further amendments as appropriate, particularly
after industry and government stakeholders are familiar with its
application, but notes that the exemption articulates the scope of
transfers the Department assesses are currently appropriate without the
need for a license or congressional notification, as applicable.
Sections 36(c) and 36(d) of the AECA require the Department to notify
Congress pursuant to the requirements articulated therein.
One commenter encouraged continued Department engagement with
industry through outreach events, communication via the DDTC website,
and FAQs. The commenter noted that additional information on the
Authorized User process, reporting requirements under Sec. 126.7,
reexports and retransfers, and expedited processing of license
applications is welcomed. The Department appreciates this feedback and
will continue to engage with industry to encourage use of the Sec.
126.7 exemption.
One commenter assessed that the Sec. 126.7 exemption will
facilitate collaboration between the United States and Australia on
space activities, but also expressed concern about potential industry
confusion due to actual or perceived ``crossover'' between the Sec.
126.7 exemption and the recently-executed Technologies Safeguard
Agreement (TSA) between the United States and Australia. The commenter
did not suggest changes to regulatory language; rather, they requested
the Department provide guidance to assist industry in navigating the
requirements of the ITAR and the two governments' TSA implementation
and to consider how to reduce the administrative burden on exporters
subject to both sets of requirements. The Department notes that TSAs
are important pre-conditions that help ensure the necessary foundation
is in place to adequately protect transfers of certain space launch
vehicle assistance and technologies. In this respect, the
responsibilities and obligations outlined in TSAs stem from and
complement requirements in the ITAR.
Regulatory Analysis and Notices
Administrative Procedure Act
This rulemaking is exempt from the notice-and-comment rulemaking
and minimum effective date requirements of the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1) as a military or foreign
affairs function of the United States Government. For the reasons
described in the interim final rule (89 FR 67270, as amended by 89 FR
68778), the Department also believes that good cause exists to proceed
with this rulemaking expeditiously as per 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and
553(d)(3).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Since this rule is exempt from the notice-and-comment provisions of
5 U.S.C. 553 as a military or foreign affairs function, and based on
the Department's finding of good cause, the rule does not require
analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This rulemaking does not involve a mandate that will result in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year and it
will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore,
no actions are deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Congressional Review Act
The Department does not believe this rulemaking is a major rule
within the definition of 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132
This rulemaking will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive
Order 13132, it is determined that this amendment does not have
sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant
the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The
regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding
intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do
not apply to this rulemaking.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14192
Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563,
directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available
regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select
regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety
[[Page 61061]]
effects). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. Because the scope of this rule
does not impose additional regulatory requirements or obligations, the
Department believes costs associated with this rule will be minimal.
Regarding the exemption, Australia and the United Kingdom, as set forth
in the section 655 reports required annually by the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961, as amended, are ordinarily among the most commonly
licensed destinations for transfers subject to the ITAR. The Department
expects that far fewer licensing applications will be submitted for
transfers of defense articles and defense services to and between
Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States as a result of the
exemption. Consequently, this exemption will relieve licensing burdens
for most exporters. Regarding when an ITAR exemption is not available
for use, the expedited licensing process provides a substantial benefit
to U.S. exporters for licensing applications involving Australia, the
United Kingdom, or Canada. This rule is exempt from the requirements of
Executive Order 14192 because it relates to a foreign affairs function
of the United States. This rule has been designated as a significant
regulatory action by the Office and Information and Regulatory Affairs
under Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 12988
The Department of State has reviewed this rulemaking in light of
Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation,
establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
Executive Order 13175
The Department of State has determined that this rulemaking will
not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct
compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt
tribal law. Accordingly, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
rulemaking.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rulemaking does not impose or revise any information
collections subject to 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 126
Arms and munitions, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Technical assistance.
For the reasons set forth above, Title 22, Chapter I, Subchapter M,
part 126 is amended as follows:
PART 126--GENERAL POLICIES AND PROVISIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 126 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 22 U.S.C. 287c, 2651a, 2752, 2753, 2776, 2778, 2779,
2779a, 2780, 2791, 2797, 10423; sec. 1225, Pub. L. 108-375, 118
Stat. 2091; sec. 7045, Pub. L. 112-74, 125 Stat. 1232; sec. 1250A,
Pub. L. 116-92, 133 Stat. 1665; sec. 205, Pub. L. 116-94, 133 Stat.
3052; and E.O. 13637, 78 FR 16129, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 223.
0
2. Revise and republish Sec. 126.7 to read as follows:
Sec. 126.7 Exemptions for defense trade and cooperation among
Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States
(a) By U.S. persons, government departments or agencies, or
Authorized Users. No license is required for the export, reexport,
retransfer, or temporary import of defense articles, furnishing of
defense services, or engaging in brokering activities as described in
part 129 of this subchapter, between or among parties described in
Sec. 126.7(b)(2), subject to the requirements and limitations in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Requirements and limitations. The exemption described in
paragraph (a) of this section is subject to the following requirements
and limitations:
(1) The activity must be to or within the physical territory of
Australia, the United Kingdom, or the United States;
(2) The transferor, recipient, or broker must each be:
(i) A U.S. person registered with the applicable Directorate of
Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) registration pursuant to Sec. Sec. 122.1
and 129.3 of this subchapter, and eligible under Sec. 120.16 of this
subchapter;
(ii) A U.S. Government department or agency, United Kingdom
national-level government department or agency, or Australian federal
government department or agency; or
(iii) An Authorized User identified through the DDTC website and,
if engaging in brokering activities, registered with DDTC pursuant to
Sec. 129.3 of this subchapter;
(3) The defense article or defense service is not identified in
supplement no. 2 to this part as ineligible for transfer under the
exemption in paragraph (a) of this section;
(4) The value of the transfer does not exceed the amounts described
in Sec. 123.15 of this subchapter and does not involve the
manufacturing abroad of significant military equipment as described in
Sec. 124.11 of this subchapter; and
(5) Transferors must comply with the requirements of Sec. 123.9(b)
of this subchapter.
Note 1 to paragraph (b): The exemption in paragraph (a) of this
section does not remove other applicable U.S. statutory and regulatory
requirements. For example, for U.S. parties, transfers of classified
defense articles and defense services must still meet the requirements
in 32 CFR part 117, National Industrial Security Program Operating
Manual (NISPOM), in addition to all other applicable laws. Australian
Authorized Users must, for example, meet the requirements in the
Australian Protective Security Policy Framework, including appropriate
security risk management for contracted providers. United Kingdom
Authorized Users must, for example, meet the requirements in the
Government Functional Standards GovS 007: Security.
(c) Reexports, retransfers, or temporary imports in support of the
armed forces of Australia, the United Kingdom, or the United States. No
license is required for the reexport or retransfer of defense articles
among parties described in Sec. 126.7(b)(2) or temporary import of
defense articles into the United States, subject to the requirements
and limitations in paragraph (d) of this section.
(d) Requirements and limitations. The exemption described in
paragraph (c) of this section is subject to the following requirements
and limitations:
(1) The defense article was originally exported pursuant to a
license or other approval;
(2) To the extent that any party described in Sec. 126.7(b)(2)(i)
or (iii) is a party to the reexport, retransfer, or temporary import
into the United States, such party is under contract with and either
directly embedded with the armed forces of Australia, the United
Kingdom, or the United States or operating alongside and in support of
such forces; and
(3) The purpose of the reexport, retransfer, or temporary import is
for:
(i) The provision of on-site support to the armed forces of
Australia, the United Kingdom, or the United States, or
(ii) The return to Australia or the United Kingdom, or the United
States of defense articles used in on-site support of the armed forces
of Australia, the United Kingdom or the United States; and
(iii) The reexport, retransfer or temporary import is subject to
paragraphs (b)(3) through (5) of this section.
[[Page 61062]]
0
3. Amend Sec. 126.18 by revising paragraph (e)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 126.18 Exemptions regarding intra-company, intra-organization,
and intra-governmental transfers to employees who are dual nationals or
third-country nationals.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) Are Australian or United Kingdom parties described in Sec.
126.7(b)(2)(ii) or (iii) or are regular employees thereof;
* * * * *
Thomas G. DiNanno,
Under Secretary, Arms Control and International Security, Department of
State.
[FR Doc. 2025-23998 Filed 12-29-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-25-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on December 30, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.